Dave McGowan On Stalin

by **proldic** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:12 pm

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work". - from the Soviet Constitution of 1936. This phrase amended an article of the first Russian constitution which had been enacted after their revolution around 1918. The original article stated "he who does not work, neither shall he eat". In the Soviet (Stalin) Constitution of 1936, the "from each" clause was added onto that article as a "principle of socialism": Article 12 Work in the U.S.S.R. is a duty and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." The 1977 Soviet Constitution contained it as follows: Article 14 (1) The source of the growth of social wealth and of the well-being of the people, and of each individual, is the labor, free from exploitation, of Soviet people. (2) The state exercises control over the measure of labor and of consumption in accordance with the principle of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work". It fixes the rate of taxation on taxable income. (3) Socially useful work and its results determine a person's status in society. By combining material and moral incentives and encouraging innovation and a creative attitude to work, the state helps transform labor into the prime vital need of every Soviet citizen.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. Karl Marx<hr></blockquote> I know for a fact that proldic is constantly active in the world trying to change it. I've largely retreated from the world, finding myself overwhelmed by the vastness and depth of corruption and conspiracy. proldic's angry and often cryptic posts reflect someone who acts first and philosophizes later, though his choice of articles to reprint often gives a pretty good idea what his thinking is on a given subject. The abovementioned cynicism and, as I have recently learned, a profound case of ADD (don't laugh, I know it's a trendy diagnosis that pharmaceutical companies love to push...but it was severely disabling for me and I've just now started digging out of the various messes I find myself in because of it...more on that another time) have kept me in recent years from really doing much of anything to try to make the world a better place, whether or not I have ultimate hope that greater systemic changes are truly possible. I'm working to correct that. And I do think writing can be part of my contribution to the world. But I also know that words are tools, and their effect is dependent on their wielders. Since I started posting on this site, I have uncovered for myself a profoundly new understanding of the "left" which explained this nebulous dissatisfaction I had with left politics in the US. (A lot of that comes from our "gatekeeper" discussions, but it goes deeper than that.) I also have come to new and disturbing realizations about such things as the "New Age" movement...things I think I understood on a deeper level but chose to ignore. (Like the sort of creepy vibe I used to get at some New Age bookstores in LA, in which I spent a LOT of time.) I have come also to an understanding of fascism and anti-Semitism which, believe it or not, I didn't come here with. It's only when I started to see some of the same myths and "theories" with slight variations all over the place that I realized that this stuff never went away. I've also come to a new understanding of "conspiracy" and how to negotiate the tricky territory between believing they are an important part of the picture but not falling into so many of the traps that this kind of theorizing can provoke. In each of these areas, I've gone through a very profound change of view. Maybe "deepening" is a better word. I've realized how much I've been deceived...from so many sources. And I'm not happy about the deception, but I'm happy to be free of some of it. I mention all these things because almost all of it has come from being poked or even bludgeoned by proldic or reading threads he started. Do old timers here remember there was a time I wouldn't even SPEAK to him? Yeah, he tends to toss verbal grenades at times. And sometimes I don't understand either what he's trying to say or why he posted a particular piece. But your stereotype of him, rdr, could not be more wrong. I don't know that I have ever really talked with too many on the left who have his take on politics. In fact, the very fact that he's even ON this board shows that. Hardline marxists very often dismiss anything 'conspiratorial' as insignificant arguments among the ruling class. Well, I say this, but now I even wonder if that's a fair characterization, as I see some "alleged" marxists are not always what they seem. And Fidel understood the JFK murder within 24 hours. so I'll rephrase that to read: Most on the "establishment left" in the US won't discuss anything smacking of conspiracy. Anyway, my own experience on this board has been a profound intellectual journey. Even the fights with the fascists have been learning experiences as I was led to find out how these old theories morph and change and find new life. And while I am often the one with the long posts people often have rather strong reactions to one way or another (thanks to those who send nice notes), much of that stuff comes from having a look at something proldic posted. I don't claim great historical knowledge. My own "skill" (thanks, in part, to the ADD) is in making connections and seeing patterns and putting them into words so that other people can see them too. (Oh yeah, and using Google.) I often have to look up even basic historical information just to make sure I have my bearings straight. I don't have NEARLY the knowledge of politics and history that I need to have as I have a lot of "wasted" years when I was sort of wandering around in a fog and not really educating myself to any great extent (I don't just mean formal education here). I also spent many, many years with a perspective that said that "intellectual" activity of any kind was not really to be valued in the face of all that needs to be done in the world. In other words, my best gifts went rather unused for much of the last two decades. proldic, whatever you want to say about him, has not spent his life trying to win debates. He's been out there doing the things that I should also get back to doing. For example, here in my home state, people are quite literally dying because our governor, who made a tidy fortune in the healtchare biz, cut funding for our state medical insurance. I mean as in dying directly from the inability to purchase medicines. We know these people's names and their funerals even make the news. I've done nothing to fight this. I've done nothing the last few years outside of trying to maintain my own life (other than a little bit of work on an anti-war march here and a little help on some electoral issues there, but VERY little). This board has been a place for me to get my thoughts together and to try to make sense of the world in a way that might help me return to engaging it in some way that might be useful. So think what you want about proldic. You are wrong to think he is typical of "marxists" (or even the generalizations you make about Marxists, but that's another issue) and I think you do him a disservice to isolate his rhetorical limitations as you see them as a defining characteristic of who he is. He walks the walk. I think that's what counts.

by **mr e** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:23 pm

to seemingly intelligent people at a conspiracy-oriented site. I see my motives have been already completely prepackaged and prejudged for me. Standard "anti-semitic" labeling, reminiscent of ADL operatives. Intesting. I'm not quite sure of the agenda of Dreams End, Qutb, et al. But if you guys/gals are hear to play disinformation/confusion/divide-and-conquer/anti-semitism-baiting flame games using me, you should know that I'm not your man. I'm a vet of many Internet flame wars and I'm retired from it all now. I'm about information, nothing more. Provacative information and opinion about evil conspiracies is what brought me to Jeff's blog and to this forum -- not the excitement of mudwrestling matches with mental midgets. So if all you come here to do is argue, you'll have to argue with others. Time is too precious. That said -- to those who honestly don't believe that bankers conspire, here's a few more tidbits. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A conspiracy is rarely, if ever, proved by positive testimony. When a crime of high magnitude is about to be perpetrated by a combination of individuals, they do not act openly, but covertly and secretly. The purpose formed is known only to those who enter into it. Unless one of the original conspirators betray his companions and give evidence against them, their guilt can be proved only by circumstantial evidence...and circumstances can not lie. [Special Judge Advocate John A. Bingham, quoted in The Trial Of The Conspirators, Washington, 1865]<hr></blockquote> "Tragedy and Hope" is a rather large tome and most of it is rather dry. It is not an anti-conspiracy book. To the contrary, Quigley was a fan of the conspiracy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I know of the operations of the network because I have studied it for several years and was permitted to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to its aims and only believe the network should be known because of its role in history. But the network wishes to remain unknown. (From "Tragedy and Hope," via <a href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Veon/joan2.htm">Joan Veon</a> <hr></blockquote> Well, okay, I guess a powerful network which "wishes to remain unknown" isn't really conspiratorial. This secret powerful network-that's-not-conspiratorial that Quigley referred to is specifically the Anglo-American network centered around the private international banks and central banks. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations."<hr></blockquote> But I guess that's not really a conspiracy, though, because Quig doesn't spell out "C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y." He only calls it a group of men acting secretly and in concert to create a system of feudalist control of the world. I guess that's different from a conspiracy. <a href="http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/"> Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution </a> <a href="http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/"> Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler</a> But since the tired old "anti-semitism" canard has been wheeled out against this writer and implicitly against Sutton (standard operating procedure for propagandists wishing to dissuade any examination of conspiracy), <a href="http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/appendix_02.htm ">here's </a> what Sutton himself had to say on the matter. The role of Jews in the initial Bolshevik movement and in other aspects of deep politics is complex, and in part because of the several definitions of "Jew." (Similarly for "Christian.") I happen to think Sutton somewhat understated the role of self-identified Jews in the initial Bolshevik movement. But in any case, the above proves Sutton was not on some anti-semitic agenda. In any case it's clear enough to me that a significant number of Jews are ensconced in the high places of the global shadow government, along with the Anglo-American types and Roman Catholics and what have you. (Maybe I'll address the Catholics and/or Jesuits some other time, eh?) It matters not to me whether the people involved are Jews or Hutus. If there are evil Jews, one should say so, without fear or favor. Ditto for evil Hutus, Anglos, Chinese, Poles, Eskimos. Ditto for Protestants, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians. I don't play favorites. Although I admit to being fascinated and horrified by the irony that powerful Jews supported the Nazi regime, and Zionist leaders "offered" their European brethren as "<a href="http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/minhametzarexcerpt1.htm">human sacrifices</a>." That should be enough for you all to chew on until dinnertime.

by **mr e** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:32 pm

it looks as if DE beat me to the punch by quoting Sutton to the effect that he did not see a Jewish conspiracy in communism. Of course, this still leaves the fact of a conspiracy, which is what I am arguing. Thank you, DE, for helping me to make my point. That is all.

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:28 pm

What does the Bank for International Settlements do, exactly?

by **robertdreed** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:40 am

For instance, Mr. E. has returned with a post that indicates that he has a copy of Tragedy and Hope handy, that he's capable of referring to it in the course of making some points of his own- however arguable- , and last but not least, providing abundant indication that he isn't "Zundel" at all, at all. Questions of "synarchy" are by nature mysterious. As Kris Milliegan has pointed out elsewhere, an allegation of covert rule by "synarchists" does assert something along the lines of a "unified theory of conspiracy", and those are the toughest sort to rationally weigh. The existence of a small, tightly networked "cryptocracy" is integral to such a theory. And yet another aspect of such a theory is the idea that its considerations go beyond ideology. It isn't merely a "rightist political theory" that imagines that that "international bankers" seek to control capitalist countries in order to institute a one-world global socialist state (the classic subtext being that Marxist Communism is "Jewish", and that the ultimate plotters are Jewish financiers seeking to corral the world toward the covert goal they hold in common); and neither is it a "left" conspiratorial theory, that holds that Western capitalists" seek to bind the entire world in slavery to the "global marketplace", in order to secure the world for Western Capitalist Hegemony (Anglo-American-European, with a few Jewish toekn front people.) Synarchy alleges something more insidious. But at it's most clear-eyed, its researchers do their investigations without the blinkers provided by ideological or ethnic bias. The surmises of the "synarchist hypothesis" may still be incorrect. But no challenger should delude themselves that it's sufficient simply to challenge them as anti-Jewish bigots, racists, or anti-Leftists. Left-Marxist conspiracy theory has its own problems. Its inherent problems aren't redeemed simply because it propounds an ideology of "the common people" versus "the wealthy elites." Hopefully the last time I feel the need to address the subject on this page: DE: "So think what you want about proldic. You are wrong to think he is typical of "marxists" (or even the generalizations you make about Marxists, but that's another issue) and I think you do him a disservice to isolate his rhetorical limitations as you see them as a defining characteristic of who he is." Dream's End, I'm not aware of proldic's record of activism, or of his track record of efficacy as a public advocate. I've made plain that my principal occupation for the last 20 years has been as a cab driver. I still don't know anything about the job history of this self-appointed champion of the working class. All I know about proldic is represented by his comments on this board. On this topic page, I've repeatedly attempted to shrug off his personal attacks on me, only to have them become more personal, petty, and vindictive with every turn. Given that, how am I supposed to be impressed with his record of "activism"? And what have I done to deserve the Ritual Denunciation? As I have repeatedly pointed out- nothing, on this page. He flew off the handle at me here for the mere fact that I posted an opinion. Since then, I've challenged him to back up his opinions with something other than Xeroxed ideological tracts, only to have the response be a string of vituperative curses. And yet another Xeroxed ideological tract... Not content with that, proldic has repeatedly miscast my opinions. For instance, I don't think that he's "the house Marxist." It's plain to me that the Left, including the Marxist Left, is much more represented among the posters here than any other faction. But of all the RI posters on the Left, he's the only one hereabouts who appears to me to be consistently vying for the position of Cadre Leader. proldic has also levelled the "accusation" at me that I don't start enough threads- as if that's a bad thing. As if there aren't enough topics that warrant more extended discussion, rather than flavor-of-the-day ephemeralism. As if starting threads was an indication of inherent merit and sincerity. It isn't. Seriously, I don't want to get into the rest of it. I don't even want the board to turn into a contest of ideologies, much less ad hominem flame wars. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 11/29/05 9:59 pm

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:44 am

Mr. E. Ummm...you referred us to a site as your primary source that has a swastika as a symbol. so, uhhhhhh.... Yeah, you got issues.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:55 am

Dream's End: If you're going to go there, you have to toss various Native American tribes and inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent into the mix, too. The swastika pre-dates the Nazis by thousands of years. They didn't invent it, they "appropriated" it. Some people make a big deal about the direction that swastikas face- whether they're illustrated as "counterclockwise" (per the Nazis) or "clockwise"- the more typical direction found in other cultures (although that's far from an ironclad rule.) The swastika illustrated in the graphic, of course, is illustrated as turning "clockwise." Myself, I wouldn't get near using a swastika turned in any direction as an emblem of my ideas. But, in and of itself, that doesn't mean much. As for the contents of the site using the graphic- that's a different story. And it's back to you, "Mr. E." I urge you to refrain from using questionable websites as reference sources. The Nazis are no more "just another misunderstood political movement" than Josef Stalin is "just another misunderstood national leader." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 11/29/05 10:01 pm

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If you're going to go there, you have to toss various Native American tribes and inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent into the mix, too.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, here's a little tip on how to distinguish the uses. When you go to a website that has a swastika and also has among it's contents (below all the articles on cannibalism) the following: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Holocaust Parodies • Ohrdruff • Six Chimneys • Tales of the Holohoax<hr></blockquote> as I already mentioned, you can safely rule out these other uses. rdr, are you just trying to score some more "points" here, or are you really coming to Mr. E's defense?

by **robertdreed** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:11 am

I want to hear more discourse. I'm not big on leaping to conclusions about the opinions of others, based on few indications. And I'm even less inclined to come down with public judgements right off the bat. Whatever assessment I may privately be holding as a tentative opinion, I'm aware that my public statements are read by third parties. There's no ethical reason for me to hound someone off of the board when they've barely ventured an opinion. And there's no practical reason for me to give anyone an excuse to complain of being hounded out of a discussion. In my opinion, it's far better to draw other posters out, and find out whether they have a genuinely insightful and original take on things, or whether they're simply regurgitating a rehash. In my experience, given time, bee-bonnet fanatics betray their obsessions. But there's no sense in pulling the photo from the solution before it's fully developed, so to speak.

by **mre** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:28 am

I am not "Zundel," whoever that may be. I am the poster formerly known, several months back, as "PeopleNotSheeple," a rather silly moniker I came up with on the spur of the moment and never really liked. The Web and Google are remarkable research tools. You can put in search terms and turn up very good information. But woe unto you if that good information should be housed on a site run by "bad people." Then it's guilt-by-association time. The problem is, good information is purveyed by bad people, or seriously mistaken people, all the time. I personally despise state communism, but I am not above going to a communist site if they should have some reliable information. (And I'm sure I could have gone to the Web site of the Neo-Stalinist-Maoist People's Workers' Socialist Party of America and quoted liberally, and few people here would have had a problem with it... because, of course, Stalin and Mao were just misunderstood trailblazers!) I wish people would develop the ability to read and evaluate information for its own sake and not dismiss it according to whose Web site it appears on. Go after the message (attack the sourcing, the logic, etc.), not the messengers. I do sense from reading some of the other posts that DE and proldc are in fact sincere in their beliefs and interpretations of the facts as they know them. I believe they are sincerely mistaken in their interpretations, but I can forgive them for that. If all are operating in good faith and sufficiently open-minded, then we will all eventually arrive at truth. Regarding interpretations, I'm neither of the "right" nor the "left." I don't trust any system or organized institution. I believe I'm looking at the "bigger picture," which encompasses both left and right, capitalism and communism. People on the Right often posit communism as "the" bogeyman, as the ultimate evil, while to partisans of the Left, communist and socialist systems get a pass while Capitalism is the devil. I say (as someone mentioned above), a pox on both houses. "Synarchism" = the worldwide revolutionary movement. This movement was and is nurtured and propagated thru occult societies (occult in organization and sometimes in a religious sense as well). A reviewer of James H. Billington's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765804719/102-4607513-4761714?v=glance&n=283155"> Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith</a>" writes (I have broken up the overly long paragraphs): <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The tumultuous upheavals and violent revolutions of the twentieth century were spawned by revolutionary ideologies fomented in the nineteenth century. These secular ideologies became full-fledged secular surrogates for religious belief and likewise sought the overthrow of traditional authority whether political or religious with the subsequent creation of a new order. ... The Illuminati and its related groups were the revolutionaries who sought to bring about an end to the old order and liberate humanity into a blissful universal utopia of liberty, equality and fraternity. .... The new secular revolutionary of the time was enamored in occultic symbols, numerology, abstractions and rituals. Billington traces the developments of the revolutionary faith, which was consummated in the Revolution of 1789, throughout the nineteenth century. Despite, various incarnations of revolutionary ideologies from anarchism to romantic utopian socialism to scientific socialism to syndicalism, a basic schism emerged ... between those who believed most in fraternity (and its idea that the nation was the vehicle of deliverance) and those who believed most in equality (and its idea that the social class was a vehicle of deliverance.) The chapter National vs. Social Revolution chronicles the revolutionary fracture that came about in the mid-1800's. What emerged from this schism were the totalitarian movements of the twentieth century. The heirs of the national revolutionary tradition, "fortified fraternity with equality" and gave birth to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. National revolutionaries of the twentieth century found their fraternity in the abstractions of Volk (People) or the (Reich) Nation. The social revolutionaries, on the other hand, lofted equality above all but bound it to fraternity. They gave rise to Bolshevism and Communist movements. Ironically, as Billington notes [but not really, considering their common pedigree -- mr e], "The most violent and authoritarian movements in Germany and Russia each intensified one form of the revolutionary faith by adopting signficant elements of the other." Nazism was abbreviation for "national socialism" while Communism under Stalin came to be defined as "socialism in one country." Both of these revolutionary faiths whether of the national revolutionary tradition or the social revolutionary tradition were millenarian social religions. Both revolutionary factions wanted a new order to supplant the old traditional order. Likewise, both factions offered a salvific promise of a glorious future for an enlightened humanity, which would be paid for in the cleansing blood of revolutionaries and dissidents alike.<hr></blockquote> The very astute Justin Raimondo has <a href="http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_28/article.html">linked</a> the neocon world-hegemony movement to this revolutionary religion. (Although I think the neocons are only one side of the dialectic...) That's enough for tonight. Hope that begins to explain where I'm coming from.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:13 pm

okay rdr, enjoy your dialogue with Mr. E. Here are a few other articles from the site he linked to you can enjoy discussing. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Charles Darwin • On Physical Beauty • On Race • On Race-Mixing • On Sterile Males • On Woman's Inferiority • On Women Choosing Husbands Oliver: Jewish Strategy • Introduction • Survival of the Fittest • A Unique Mentality • The Jewish Religion • Conspiracy or Instinct? • Extermination • Religiosity • Christianity Holocaust Parodies • Ohrdruff • Six Chimneys • Tales of the Holohoax Sheppard: Tyranny of Ambiguity • Introduction 1 • Introduction 2 • Base & Spoiled Female • TOA11: Signals Theory • TOA24: TEBAR6 • TOA29: Forms & Indicators Sheppard: Other • All About Women • Anna Frank's Novel • Anne Frank FAQ • Anne Frank's Ballet School • Anne Frank's Holocaust • Anne Frank's Real Diary • Anne Frank's Sick Joke • Anne Frank's Translations • BBC Basic • BOF1: Anne Frank Diary • BOF2: World War Two • BOF3: The New Religion • Child Abuse • ‘Equal Opportunities’ • The Female as Enemy • Feminism and War • Internet Law • Kill Yourself Now! • Negrophilia • Orders of Big Sister • UFO Religion • What Jews Do • Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males • Win a Real Man! 1 • Win a Real Man! 2 <hr></blockquote> You guys have a lot to talk about so I'll just leave you alone. Here, I'll even give you a topic starter from one of the articles at heretical.com: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Jews don't miss a trick. If you think it's bad to oppose them, you've been tricked. <a href="http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/wjd.html">www.heretical.com/sheppard/wjd.html</a><hr></blockquote> And here's some more artwork from that site you can enjoy, robert. <img src="http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/jewdeath.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Hey, but there's one consolation for you, rdr. At least he's not a Marxist. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 11/30/05 9:14 am

by **robertdreed** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:56 pm

been there, did that. I'm much more interested in RI newbie "Mr. E."'s comments on that linked material, and why he found it the most reliable reference for his views, than re-visiting terrritory that both of us have already covered. The views of both of us are on the record here on the board, in regard to the pseudo-iconoclasm of Neo-Nazism. The parting shot about my non-Marxism was gratuitous, to say the least. Meaningless, really. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 11/30/05 7:46 pm

by **AnnaLivia** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:49 pm

what part of PEOPLE IN OVENS don't the rest of us understand?

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:05 pm

It's just that when proldic posts from Parenti, you have a problem with it, but when Mr. E posts from "eviljews.com" you find him worthy of dialogue. And his original comments were about the cabal of international bankers. How, do you imagine, do you think I knew, before visiting heretical.com, what kind of site it would be? How, do you imagine, did I find myself unsurprised to see a swastika appear on my browser next to the name of that site? It's because the very comments at the outset were the same coded language, "Jews run the world" ideologies that keep popping up all over this board. There are ways to talk about international finance and capitalism that are not nearly so simplistic. And almost without fail, those who do resort to this simplistic view of banking conspiracies get take their cue from theories such as you'll find on heretical.com. Whatever merits Sutton may have (beyond directly contradicting Mr. E's own post) and Quigley may have, it is quite evident that the use to which Mr. E would like to put those writers is to support the type of theories heretical.com espouses. It could not have been any clearer if he'd put a swastika directly in his signature line itself.

Dave McGowan On Stalin

I'll bite

to rdr

I shouldn't even have to explain these things

well

Re: well

the plot thickens...

Re: the plot thickens...

Re: the plot thickens...

Re: the plot thickens...

Re: the plot thickens...

'National Socialism'/'Socialism in one country'

Re: What's left after the pox on both houses?

Dream's End...

for godsake

Re: Dream's End...

Who is online